ORDINANCE RELATING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AMENDING SECTION 2-1 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION AUDITOR COMPLETE BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE PERSON, ORGANIZATION, PLACE OR THING THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A NAMING, RENAMING OR CODESIGNATION ITEM AND PREPARE A REPORT DETAILING THE FINDINGS OF SAID RESEARCH; DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO PLACE THE REPORT ON THE AGENDA AS A SUPPLEMENT; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 130257]

Indexes:

RULES OF PROCEDURE

CODESIGNATION

Sponsors:

Rebeca Sosa, Prime Sponsor

Lynda Bell, Co-Sponsor

Esteban L. Bovo, Jr., Co-Sponsor

Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Co-Sponsor

Audrey M. Edmonson, Co-Sponsor

Sally A. Heyman, Co-Sponsor

Sunset Provision:
No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History

Acting Body

Date

Agenda Item

Action

Sent To

Due Date

Returned

Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners

4/2/2013

7C

Adopted

P

REPORT:

Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record.
Chairwoman Sosa provided a brief overview of the intent of this ordinance and expressed her appreciation to her colleagues who joined her in sponsoring this item.
Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote.

County Attorney

3/19/2013

Assigned

Annery Pulgar Alfonso

3/26/2013

Economic Development & Port Miami Committee

3/14/2013

1F2 Amended

Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendment(s)

P

REPORT:

Assistant County Attorney Monica Maldonado read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record.
Chair Bell opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak regarding the foregoing proposed ordinance, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Diaz requested to be added as a co-sponsor to the foregoing ordinance.
Commissioner Jordan inquired whether any type of analysis had been conducted by the Commission Auditor in connection with the foregoing ordinance.
Deputy Mayor Jack Osterholt responded that the Commission Auditor initially thought the process would be the same one used to vet an individual that was joining the staff; upon discovering this was the naming of a street, it was determined that this thorough process may constitute a violation of one’s privacy rights. He noted a traditional computer search (i.e. Google) of publicly available information should be conducted in an effort to avoid violating anyone’s right to privacy; further noting there was no fiscal impact to conducting this type of background search.
Further discussion ensued among committee members, Assistant County Attorney Maldonado and Mr. Osterholt regarding conducting background searches versus conducting searches for publicly available; Mr. Osterholt further explained that using the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to conduct a thorough background check may violate one’s privacy because they had not given consent to do so or the person maybe deceased.
Chair Bell pointed out there was no rule against a street designation or co-designation being granted to someone that was alive, which means the subject of the co-designation did have the ability to consent to a background check.
Assistant County Attorney Annery Alfonso concurred with Chair Bell’s statement noting the issue was that these items came as an honor to an individual, a corporation or an entity, not at the request of the individual or the entity but at the request of a Commissioner or a Municipality; therefore a criminal background search would be inappropriate as the individual or entity had not consented to a search of records that were not publicly available, also those records would become public record because they would be attached to the item. Assistant County Attorney Alfonso noted this ordinance was not intended to impose on anyone’s right to privacy, the ordinance’s intent was to only conduct a search of publicly available information.
Commissioner Diaz noted although no guidelines had been put in place, he would like to know more information about the person or the entity that a street or facility was being named for in an effort to avoid getting caught off guard with something that happened in the subjects past.
Assistant County Attorney Alfonso noted that it was a matter of which records the Commission Auditor could look at in order to provide the commission with more information on the subject of the item. She noted the intent of the item was to have the Commission Auditor look at only publicly available information, public records and other information that is available to the general public, and not to do a criminal background search which would potentially invade the privacy of an individual that is the subject of an item who has not consented.
Commissioner Jordan expressed her concern, noting since there was not a procedure in place, one needed to be put in place. She noted a person’s situation from the past becomes subjective. She suggested that the sponsor of the foregoing ordinance consider legislation on this procedure in an effort to maintain consistency and not subjectivity in terms of what should be approved versus what should not be approved. Commissioner Jordan further noted that even though a Commissioner sponsors an item to have a road or facility named, the request usually comes from a family member or the subject individual themselves and the subject should be notified that there will be a background check conducted.
Commissioner Souto inquired whether the foregoing proposed ordinance precluded municipalities.
With regards to Commissioner Souto’s inquiry, Assistant County Attorney Alfonso explained the foregoing proposed ordinance only required that the Commission Auditor conduct research on a person or an entity that is the subject of a naming, renaming or co-designation item either sponsored by this commission or brought to this commission for approval by any municipality; it did not preclude the Board from approving an item nor did it preclude any municipality from bringing an item before the Board. She further noted it simply provided the Board with information that is publicly available on the entity or person who was the subject of the item.
Deputy Mayor Osterholt apprised Committee members that the foregoing ordinance should be amended to reflect that there is no fiscal impact.
Hearing no further comments or questions the Committee proceeded to vote.

Legislative Text

TITLE

ORDINANCE RELATING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AMENDING SECTION 2-1 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION AUDITOR COMPLETE BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE PERSON, ORGANIZATION, PLACE OR THING THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A NAMING, RENAMING OR CODESIGNATION ITEM AND PREPARE A REPORT DETAILING THE FINDINGS OF SAID RESEARCH; DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO PLACE THE REPORT ON THE AGENDA AS A SUPPLEMENT; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 130257]

BODY

WHEREAS, this Board periodically names, renames or codesignates Miami-Dade County roads, facilities or property following a public hearing in honor of various people, organizations, places and things that are significant to this community; and
WHEREAS, this Board is also asked to periodically approve state and municipal road codesignations; and
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes section 334.071 provides that the installation of state road designation signs, following the Florida Legislature passing legislation making an honorary road codesignation, shall be contingent on the applicable county or city commission passing a resolution in support of the particular honorary road designation; and
WHEREAS, municipalities also pass resolutions making honorary codesignations, and while municipalities have the authority to codesignate municipal roads, this Board approves such codesignations prior to them being displayed on County street signs and traffic signal mast arms; and
WHEREAS, by passing resolutions to name, rename, or codesignate Miami-Dade County roads, facilities or property and by approving state and municipal road codesignations, this Board is recognizing and praising the person, organization, place or thing that is the subject of the naming, renaming or codesignation item; and
WHEREAS, due to the respect and service that is owed to the residents of Miami-Dade County, this Board desires to take all necessary steps to ensure that all naming, renaming or codesignation items are appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Commission Auditor is charged with providing this Board with information about pending legislation, issues and proposals coming before the Board; and
WHEREAS, this Board desires to have the Commission Auditor complete background research on any person, organization, place or thing that is the subject of a naming, renaming or codesignation item and provide this Board with a report of the findings of said research prior to the Boardís consideration of the item; and
WHEREAS, this Board finds that tasking the Commissioner Auditor with this endeavor will assist this Board in approving only those honorary naming, renaming or codesignation items that are appropriate for the residents of Miami-Dade County,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 2-1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
Sec. 21. Rules of procedure of County Commission.

* * *
Rule 9.02 Naming, renaming or codesignation of Miami-Dade County roads, facilities or property>>; approval of state or municipal road codesignations<(a) Resolutions regarding proposed naming, renaming or codesignation of Miami-Dade County roads, facilities or property shall be sponsored by the district commissioner where the property is located and shall be considered at public hearing.

(b) Resolutions honoring outstanding individuals shall not be authorized for living individuals except as provided in subsection (d) hereof.

(c) For every resolution honoring an individual without a personal and direct meaningful relationship to the Greater Miami area, the Board of County Commissioners shall, at the same time, honor an individual who has made a direct, significant contribution to this community.

(d) This rule shall not prohibit the naming, renaming or designation of a facility or property after a living individual who donates a significant portion of the cost of such facility or property. Further, this rule shall not prohibit the naming, renaming or designation of a road, facility or property after a living individual who has made a direct, significant lifetime contribution to this community, provided:

(i) That the naming, renaming or designation is approved by three-fifths vote of the Board members present;

(ii) That the naming, renaming or designation is not for any elected municipal, county, state or federal official currently serving or having served in any elected office within the last five years; and

(iii) That the naming, renaming or designation of a road, facility or property in a particular commission district is limited to two times during any calendar year.

(e) Special provisions for employees who give their lives in the line of duty. The County Manager shall present the Board of County Commissioners with a resolution proposing the naming of an appropriate public right-of-way or portion thereof in honor of any Miami-Dade County employee who gives his or her life in the line of duty. Such resolution shall be considered at public hearing and may be adopted by the Board upon a favorable vote of a majority of the commissioners present.

>>(f) The Commission Auditor shall complete background research, reviewing public records and other sources of information, in print, on the internet, or through other means of communication, that are publicly available, on any person, organization, place or thing that is the subject of a naming, renaming or codesignation item or an item approving the codesignation of state or municipal roads, and shall prepare a report detailing the findings of said research prior to the Commission meeting during which the item is scheduled to be considered. The Clerk of the Board shall place the Commission Auditorís report on the commission agenda as a supplement to the related agenda item.<<

* * *
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 3. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word ''ordinance'' may be changed to ''section,'' ''article,'' or other appropriate word.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.

This item was amended at the Economic Development & PortMiami Committee on March 14, 2013. The County Mayorís Fiscal Impact Statement, included as a supplement to the item, was amended at committee to reflect that the item has no fiscal impact.